Agreement between different survey instruments to assess incident and prevalent tumors and medical records - results of the Heinz Nixdorf Recall Study

作者：Bokhof Beate^*; Eisele Lewin; Erbel Raimund; Moebus Susanne

来源：Cancer Epidemiology, 2014, 38(2): 181-192.

DOI：10.1016/j.canep.2014.01.002

• Validity
• Agreement
• Assessment tools
• Tumor diagnoses
• Medical records

Objective: The validity of participants%26apos; self-reports via questionnaires or interviews in epidemiological studies remains questionable. We examined the agreement of tumors, reported via different survey instruments, with medical records. %26lt;br%26gt;Methods: Within the Heinz Nixdorf Recall Study, comprising 4814 subjects aged 45-75 years, tumors were assessed via different survey tools at baseline and 8-year-follow up (FU): personal interviews (CAPI), self-administered questionnaires (SA-Q), physical examinations, short questionnaire/non-responder questionnaire (S-/N-Q) and telephone interviews. Information on each self-reported tumor was coded via ICD-10, WHO-Version 2010, and evaluated against medical records. %26lt;br%26gt;Results: During FU, 95% of 1083 self-reported incident tumors in 623 individuals, at baseline, 65% of 473 prevalent tumors in 406 individuals could be evaluated. Agreement of the main assessment tools, CAPI and SA-Q, with medical records was 90.1% and 88.4% (FU) and 91.0% (baseline-CAPI). %26lt;br%26gt;Best agreement was in tumors of prostate (baseline-CAPI: 97.8%; 5-year-FU-CAPI: 96.9%, SA-Q: 95.7%) and breast (baseline-CAPI: 93.2%; 5-year-FU-CAPI: 100.0%, SA-Q: 98.8%). %26lt;br%26gt;Discussion: Agreement of CAPI and SA-Q with medical records was good. To assess incident tumors, SA-Q emerged as favorable, as it is least expensive and easy to be applied. Especially for tumors of prostate and breast, cost-intensive and time-consuming validation with medical records may not be necessary.

• 出版日期2014-4
• 单位河北医科大学